- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:27:43 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Robin Berjon wrote: > On Jan 30, 2009, at 00:13 , Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> Robin Berjon wrote: >>> In the spirit of tiptoeing around the situation some more, I'd like >>> to point out that Working Drafts are NEVER normative. Only >>> Recommendations are. >> >> While true, a Working Draft is ipso facto something that is intended >> to become a Recommendation if it gathers consensus. > > As Karl explained, that is definitely not the case. Some WDs are taken > off track, others simply become Notes. Notes are informative. That > doesn't make them any less useful. The fact that a WG may end up deciding to take a WD off the REC track and publish it as a NOTE, does not change the fact that a WD claiming to be normative was at least developed with the intention of reaching a REC. In other words, the fact that the final outcome may differ from intent, does not change the intent. > Would the chairs agree to a strawpoll about publishing the draft proviso > it has a warning label stating (as Håkon dutifully pointed out) that its > claims to normativity are subject to caution? I believe it would be more prudent to instead initially publish the draft informatively as I believe there is less bureaucracy involved with moving a WD, or even a NOTE, to the REC track than there is in the reverse. Additionally, it places the burden of proof upon those who argue that it should be put on the REC track, rather than on those of us against. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 00:28:26 UTC